About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
not be surprised. even though the republican majority is a little smaller. and some of the people that boehner lost are moderates and the type of people that would want to cut deals. there may be people as the freshman move into leadership positions. jim langford is making a bid for the policy committee chairmanship, a springboard for a lot of people there seems to be a general calming down among some of the fire breathing. you know there is the potential for mischief on the floor. some of the news reported that the more conservative members of the republican party contemplated now the threshold for bringing down a bill is even smaller that they might not even vote for rules. that potential for mischief. and the people one term in that have now gone through a disappointing election. they have also seen that there are things that they can get done that perhaps they were not able to do in the middle of the debt crisis, making a negotiation. so the tone in the house, i would not be surprised if it racheted down a tiny bit. people are just with a little bit of experience and a few more gray hairs they
the bottleneck now. um, you probably saw the article this morning from hubbard, you saw what boehner said. i take from this collection some optimism that in 2013 the way it might play out is whether we go over, don't go over the fiscal cliff, you know, there's a lot to happen in the next three months that we get to some space where if they did a trillion dollars of cuts and reforms of entitlements, a trillion dollars on discretionary, a trillion of new revenue and a trillion of saved interest which is only because the budget doesn't understand the present value, but, you know, that's okay, if you did that, you basically could sort out a grand bargain in a way that would be, i think, a pretty good accomplishment for both parties. but i think the principal thing in that is can you get a significant chunk of republicans in the house to support anything that's got a trillion dollars of revenue in it. >> so you think they reach a bargain. you kind of moved quickly over the cliff, what happens to get to that bargain? >> yeah, sorry, i thought that's what you were asking is. i'm somewhat pessimistic the
in the senate. john boehner is serious about doing something. it will not work if the president does not lead. the president has to set the course. you saw that in the legislation i was part of. the big question will be whether this president stepped up and leads. >> on the one hand, you use the word opportunity. you see that ceos are saying they are investing in hiring. there are remarkably more worried in europe and some of these other problems we're talking about. >> look at this. this is a more imminent. it tells me there is an opportunity. the primary barrier to getting a grand bargain has been an opposition to any revenues in the deal. the reason why there are not specific papers you can read and see what was the dl is precisely because thing started showing up and bob woodward's book. each side feels they did not want to write down i read you this and you offer me this. it was totally understood. people have been doing deals with the congress and the executive for 225 years. few other people have figured out how to do it. i would not pick the president diminishing his value. that does
this to be a juicy story as opposed to writing about white house budget negotiations with john boehner, particularly in the last 12 hours as we have learned about an fbi agent who was investigating the case initially who sent a shirtless photo of himself to one of the women involved and now these 30,000 e-mails, suspect e-mails between the general who had been commanding the war effort in afghanistan, general allen, and jill kelley, one of the women involved in this, which make me ask the question, when does he have time to run the war? >> right, right. i want to ask you, too, watching pictures of the white house in the briefing room and jay carney's going to step up to the podium, get a lot of questions, you can bet a lot on the scandal and the implications and this certainly has to be quite a distraction, to say the very least, the white house. how do they get on top of this? how do they get ahead of the story in some way? clearly they're not going to want the president to deal with these questions tomorrow at the press conference. >> well, it's inevitable, you can put money on it president obama
, speaker boehner had pushed at the urging of many of us and invited prime minister netanyahu and gave the best speech here in congress. it helps when a nation's enemy sees an ally siding with them. on the other hand, when a nation's enemy sees a strong ally, the united states, turning on an ally as this administration had with president mubarak and people wanting to see israel gone from the map, take power. it encourages israel's enemies. this administration also had relations with gaddafi. he had blood on his hands from prior years. not a good man. but he had opened up his country, aban dopped any nuclear weapons pursuits -- abandoned any nuclear weapons pursuits and became an ally. i have seen individual family members of gaddafi here in washington to meet with administration officials and lo and be hold, year and a half or so ago, this administration sides with the enemies and at the time, we knew al qaeda was contained within the revolt and we sided with the al qaeda-backed revolt to drive out gaddafi. that appears to have inspired the violence in tunisia. so we have seen israel's
says he wants to see higher tax rates. john vitter says axel in not. >> -- john boehner says clearly not. >> it is a lot easier to say at this level of generality. it becomes harder to enacted. the number of times of with the head of the cbo, senator so and so would call me up and say i want to talk about tax reform and i would walk in and the head is one talking point which is brought in the base and lower the rate. what are you willing to scale back? mortgage interest, cannot touch that. charitable, cannot touch that. you go down the list. one of the reasons of these new ideas being attractive is a are obscuring what has to be cut back. >> there is still a hard choice there. >> we are not saying we are going to cut out your ability to deduct your mortgage but i will get to keep my ability to deduct my local tax. everything goes into a pot. everybody gets to keep their deductions but you cannot be too greedy about it. it does have to limit the amount they can benefit from it. >> that is the selling point. >> the notion here, can you do this and have the only effect of the wealthiest
coming together, and boehner used the term "comprehensive immigration reform," and so the prospects are better than they were certainly before the election, and they look better than they had. with regards to mexico, i personally don't think there's any issue that is more important for the quality of the relationship at this point. it's one of those issues that is behind sens, whatever issue one's talking about, you know, for many in mexico, not just u.s. immigration policy annoying and irritating, but offensive, the fence, the walling in, the way imgrants, largely mexican communities are talked about, and this would, if there is a policy shift in any major way, i think, would have an important impact. more as important, however, i think if one looks at the immigration issue, and i'm not going to go into details now, but it's also an economic issue. i mean, immigration and manuel will probably talk a little about that as well, but in other words, just the fact is that if you can bring 6 million mexicans out of the shadows and pried some legal status to them, they should earn more mo
week. host: "the baltimore sun" has a story, "boehner ways next moves." this is from "the wall street journal." "post office hint of gop path." host: "she fit a profile." so, more on leadership, which both sides will be voting for this week when they return to washington on who will be their leaders. so, we will continue to watch that story for u.s. well. part of the mix to avoid the fiscal cliff is these jobless benefits. that is the headline in the politics and policy section of "the washington post." "over 2 million americans could lose their jobless benefits before the end of the year." host: susan, michigan, what do you think? should we cut medicare and social security? caller: absolutely not. absolutely not. host: why not? caller: i am a woman who has finally reached the age of social security. all the years the work, this money was taken out of my paycheck. i was told from a very young age that when i reached a fine age of the period where you retire and you can get social security, that all the money that i paid in would be refunded to me. this money is not to be touched, not
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)